The Quackometer on UK Homeopathy Opacity, and My Extension onto the NA Naturopathy Apparatus

here, it cite from a recent post by Andy Lewis at the Quackometer [see 001., below]; then, I extend those observations onto North America's naturopathy apparatus [NANA, see 002., below]:

001.  the Quackometer writes in "The Media Code for Homeopaths" (2011-02-06):

"in December, various homeopathy groups from the UK have held a conference [...] one of the results of that conference was a 'Media Code', a set of rules designed to help homeopaths present their views to the media [...] a version of that Media Code has leaked out, and I am sure they will not be happy about it as it shows how they intend to be less than straightforward about their beliefs [...] this media code is amateurish, deceptive and will be ultimately inconsequential."

Note: so say we all.  So, overall there is opacity -- a lack of transparency / truthfulness -- concerning BELIEFS.

002. parallels with NANA:

002.a. NANA's TRUE belief set:

This can easily be found at the '.gov' site of the source of it all, pretty-much, the State of Oregon [SoO].  I won't go through the rigors of directly citing [as I've done this all too often on this blog], instead I'll summarize.  On this web page, naturopathy claims that the hugely science-ejected is able to survive scientific scrutiny.  It's a decree; not a finding that has made its way through any kind of scientific community process.  Claiming, de novo, that something is what it is not is quite a contraction and irrationality -- and all this has '.gov' sanction.

The ejected ideas / claims are best categorized as prescientific sectarian belief, such as vitalism and supernaturalism: that physiology is run by / imbued with a 'purposeful life spirit' which can be manipulated to cure disease.  Overall, then, we're told that current science-fact is current nonscience-figmentation.  This leads me to the conclusion that, within this belief system, a 'physician' and a 'metaphysician' are the same thing, and that it is deemed rational to visit a so-called physician who's overall worldview conflates science with nonscience, belief with objective fact, and the archiac science-ejected with that which actually survives scientific scrutiny.  My well-being is more important to me, I suggest you too avoid such medievalism.

But there you go, etched in marble at the Oregon state capital [sort of].  Having the whole thing on a '.gov' site is, by the way, a data-forensics wet dream.

002.b. then there's the more typical obfuscation / opacity, as you'd be hard-pressed to find that same SoO language at either:

002.b1. the State of Connecticut [SoC] site for naturopaths, the Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association [CNPA], who state in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-02-06]:

"naturopathic medicine is a licensed medical profession [professions claim...] individualized therapy may include [...] homeopathy [empty pills, essentially, claimed as medicinal...] in an effort to stimulate natural healing forces within the body [coded vitalism...NDs] possess an in depth understanding of human and plant biochemistry and physiology [...] empowering the patient in the process."

Note: and that's really ALL you get there.  This CNPA page doesn't contextualize either, merely briefly mentioning: "according to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment that follow the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#1] vis medicatrix naturae - to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature [...while claiming naturopathy is] science."

What kind of profession is based upon deception's like homeopathy, and false claims about physiology?  What kind of profession codes its premises and therein does not provide enough information to be truly informed in a decision about whether to engage with it?  Who exactly is empowered by such?  CNPA claims that its primary principal is "first do no harm", truly the reversal of all values in the sense that now harm / manipulation and benefit / transparency are the same thing.

Most of the board at CNPA went to the Oregon school that wrote that Oregon description!  At least with the Oregon site we get some details of the whole absurdity-irrationality.

CNPA also states at their homepage [vsc 2011-02-06]:

"a millennium of experience, decades of scientific research the ancient new medicine that works for everyone."

Wow.  A huge science claim, and that great "ancient new" contradiction in terms like 'science-based naturopathy' or 'the naturalistic supernatural'.

I'd love to know how homeopathy works for ANYONE: Randi has a million dollar challenge that NOBODY at CNPA, I'll guess, will participate in.

In fact, not even SoC's '.gov' site transparently communicates naturopathy's actual contents / context [that I can find].  The State of Connecticut Department of Public Health [vsc 2011-02-06; the propaganda arm of CNPA!?] is actually falsely claiming that naturopathy's contents are SCIENCE.  So, I'd say: don't expect enforcement action in the State of Connecticut regarding naturopathy's commerce-illegality [clinical, educational and such].  SoC would have to prosecute itself [its DPH, its DHE], and I doubt that's going to happen.  Better to call in the Feds?

002.b2. at the Province of New Brunswick, Canada site for naturopaths, the New Brunswick Association of Naturopathic Doctors [NBAND] states in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-02-06]:

NOTHING about naturopathy's science-ejected vitalistic basis, instead coding it as: "to cooperate with the healing powers of nature - we cannot have healthy people on a sick planet, so we must take care of our environment and use the gifts of the earth in a respectful manner."  Really, wow, how INACCURATE   No wonder David Suzuki supports them, and speaks at their meetings.  There is a touch of naturopathy's supernaturalism there, per "we take into account the physical, psychological and spiritual health of each patient."  And there's a lot of talk of science.  But, nowhere are you transparently informed that naturopathy is a belief system comprised of science-ejected ideas.  You are instead manipulated with opacity and false science claims placed upon the profoundly science-ejected.

Perhaps NBAND's statement "naturopathic treatments can be used effectively on their own [...like] homeopathy" says enough about all this naturopathic nonsense.

Ironically, we're told: "an ND emphasizes patient education with the intention of empowering individuals towards self responsibility and control over their own health care decisions.  We are also eager to share our knowledge."

The irony is killing me.

Now, they are not licensed / regulation yet by the province, but I am eager to see what language ends up there.

ND Parker's NAET, Homeopathy, CST and Naturopathy: Falsely Labeled Science-Ejected Nonsense

here, I cite from the web pages of an ND who uses NAET, homeopathy, and CST [see 001.a., below]; and claims naturopathy is science, while based upon the supernatural and vitalistic science-exterior [see 001.b, below]; claims homeopathy is a science [see 001.c. and d., below]; and details NAET [see 001.e., below]; then, I provide an ACTUAL scientific context for these quite false science claims upon nonscience and quite weird therapeutic and diagnostic activities that have neither efficacy nor plausible rationale [see 002., below]; then I muse [see 003., below]:

001. Parker, R.M. (ND Bastyr 2007) states [all vsc 2011-02-05]:

001.a. in "Rebecca Maya Parker, ND":

"Rebecca Maya Parker, ND is a board-certified naturopathic doctor [...] a graduate of Bastyr University and the New England School of Homeopathy [...] who specializes in classical homeopathy and NAET allergy elimination [...] in addition to homeopathy, Dr. Parker uses NAET allergy elimination [and] craniosacral therapy [CST]."

Note: so, she is of Bastyr, into homeopathy, NAET, and CST.  Bastyr's clinical arm is into homeopathy and CST, and I'm wondering how much, if any, NAET.

001.b. in "Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medical schools include extensive training in medical science and diagnosis [...] Bastyr University [her alma mater...] is one of the world's leading academic centers for advancing knowledge in the natural health sciences."

Note: so, there's the blanket "science" claim over naturopathy.  And the claim of "natural". So, you'd think that if it's all science, and if the education was so "leading" and "extensive", that the actual naturopathy-stuff would be able to survive scientific scrutiny.

Furthermore, on the same page, ND Parker explains the bases of naturopathy:

"naturopathic doctors follow these principles: [#1] nature has a tendency toward health and healing [NHTTHH]. Naturopathic doctors support this tendency in their patients [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors treat their patients as whole people. The body, mind, and spirit are not separate from each other [some kind of sectarian supernaturalism]."

Note: there is no vital force, live force, vitalism, vitalistic, or medicatrix mentioned on ANY web page of this practice, that I've found.  So much for informed consent. But do not fear, that is what NHTTHH means, preponderantly. So, claimed within science is the nonscientific / science-exterior / science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural.  I'm not sure what it means to not be able to separate a body from a mind from a spirit.  It's a belief of some kind.  Of course, bodies and minds have their own sciences to study them, and the spirit stuff is religiosity of a kind.

001.c. in "Homeopathy":

"homeopathy is a scientific method of triggering your body’s self-healing potential [YBSHP, coded vitalism]."

Note: the vitalistic is again coded. Being a classical homeopath, ND Parker is being quite opaque here since they are sooooo Hahnemann-literal in classical homeopathy.

001.d. in "Dear New Patient":

"homeopathy is a scientific method of triggering your body’s self-healing potential."

Note: that science label again upon homeopathy.  That coded vitalism again.  Yes, that's a pediatric intake form explaining homeopathy and NAET.

001.e. in "NAET":

"NAET (Nambudripad’s Allergy Elimination Technique) is a systematic way of training the body to recognize which substances are not toxic [...] NAET is a safe, natural, and remarkably effective method of removing allergies and other reactions against healthy substances [...] NAET allergy elimination is an effective treatment for conditions such as: asthma, migraines, chronic sinusitis, chronic ear infections, ADD, ADHD, autism, fibromyalgia, and much more. Dr. Parker has been trained in the practice of NAET by Dr. Devi Nambudripad, MD, DC, LAc, PhD—who developed NAET by combining techniques from her expertise as a medical doctor, a chiropractor, and an acupuncturist."

Note: NAET galore, with lots of promise of efficacy for many quite serious diseases.

002. what ACTUAL science says [not that 'naturopathic science laxity'] about NAET, homeopathy, CST:

002.a. the [pedestrian!] Wikipedia has, as its entry for "NAET" [saved 2011-02-05], this to say [and, by the way, I've never been a contributor to Wikipedia]:

"Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique (NAET) is an alternative medicine technique intended as a treatment for allergies and chemical sensitivities. Founded in 1983 by Devi Nambudripad [...] NAET draws on ideas from acupuncture, applied kinesiology, and allergy medicine. NAET attracts controversy due to the lack of scientific justification of the therapeutic approach, and absence of supporting scientific evidence of its clinical effectiveness."

Note: ouch, the reality STINGS US PRECIOUS.  NAET is a bogus clinical parlor trick.

002.b. the 2009 evidence check on homeopathy by the UK government:

states that homeopathy is actually so implausible and so without efficacy that no further study is needed to whole-heartedly dismiss it on scientific and ethical grounds.

002.c. and regarding craniosacral therapy, MD Barrett states at Quackwatch in "Why Craniosacral Therapy Is Silly":

"the scientific viewpoint: I do not believe that craniosacral therapy has any therapeutic value. Its underlying theory is false because the bones of the skull fuse by the end of adolescence and no research has ever demonstrated that manual manipulation can move the individual cranial bones [...] in 2002, two basic science professors at the University of New England College of Osteopathic Medicine concluded: 'our own and previously published findings suggest that the proposed mechanism for cranial osteopathy is invalid and that interexaminer (and, therefore, diagnostic) reliability is approximately zero. Since no properly randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled outcome studies have been published, we conclude that cranial osteopathy should be removed from curricula of colleges of osteopathic medicine and from osteopathic licensing examinations.' I certainly agree! In fact, I believe that most practitioners of craniosacral therapy have such poor judgment that they should be delicensed."

Note: ouch, again precious.

003. the knowledge-type disease of naturopathy [perhaps why all this happens in the first place -- the root cause]:

Bastyr, the alma mater of ND Parker, has a marketing slogan for naturopathy that states "Bastyr At a Glance" [vsc 2011-02-05]:

"Bastyr University  [...has] a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [coded vitalism]. A pioneer in natural [coded supernaturalism] medicine since its inception, Bastyr continues to be in the forefront of developing the model for 21st-century medicine [as if the past is now future]."

What's happened in that 'knowledge model' is that science has been redefined -- without explicitly stating so --  to include what science can't include.  I've labeled this phenomenon 'epistemic conflation', the blending of knowledge types.  So, by way of Bastyr's language and my knowledge of the contents of the naturopathic belief system, Bastyr decrees that science contains the science-ejected supernatural and vitalistic.

With science no longer requiring evidence of a rigorous scientific nature [not to pun], it is no wonder that NDs do crap stuff and claim it is science.  And I'll make an emphasis here that the practitioner's experience and the patient's feedback do not constitute scientific evidence.  Such is anecdote, the weakest quality / kind of evidence / knowledge.

Knowing how meaningless the term science is, in reality, as regards 'the naturopathic', it is no wonder that NAET, CST, homeopathy and the vitalistic-spiritistic are falsely claimed as science by naturopathyland.

NUHS - Raising the Entrance GPA on an Idea that Gets an F, and a Milieu of Selective Fairness

here, I cite from a recent Dynamic Chiropractic [DC; which is quite COMICAL] article on National University of Health Sciences [NUHS; see 001., below]; then, I muse about the irony of having a concern for fairness when naturopathy itself is hugely mislabeled by NUHS in the first place! [see 002., below]:

001. the editorial staff of DC writes in "National Raises Bar, Ups Entrance GPA" (2011-01-29, vol. 29 no.03):

"National University of Health Sciences has announced that beginning with the fall 2012 incoming class, all students seeking to enroll [...] will be required to have a minimum 2.75 grade-point average to qualify for entry [...] the new standard will also apply to the university's naturopathic medicine doctorate degree program [...] 'as tuitions have gone up, it is vitally important for me that students be able to complete a program before sustaining a huge financial burden [...] if students come to National unprepared for the rigor of our curriculum, they might drop out or be expelled in the third, fourth or fifth trimester. They [would] then find themselves with a $60,000-$70,000 debt that they can't get rid of, and no career. It's not fair to them!' [...says] said Dr. James Winterstein, NUHS president."

Note: so, there's this label of science placed upon naturopathy, and this concern for fairness...of all things.  I think the costs of the process of an ND are adequately spoken for.

002. musing:

well, I know for a fact that preponderantly, naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected and that those science-ejected concepts are built into the ND oath.  I also know that within that oath is the label of science placed upon those science-ejected concepts.  And the oath also guides NDs / NMDs in another way: by example, it falsely labels the science-exterior without transparently relating that science-exterior content and is actual science-exteriority.

This sound like, and I agree with the NUHS person above: unfair.  Unfair trade.  They are, collectively, 'the education robbers'.

But, why is the grossest of charades not unfair: academic mislabeling [science upon sectarian belief systems]?  That is selective fairness.  It seems to say:

it's okay for us to take you for the whole deceptive ride, but we don't think it's fair if you can't get all the way.

Labeling naturopathy "science" is no better than labeling astrology or homeopathy as science.  It is simply WRONG.

SciAM on the Naturalism of Science 2011-02

here, I cite from a recent Scientific American article on the naturalistic basis of science [see 001., below]:

001. Michael Shermer writes in "Houdini's Skeptical Advice: Just Because Something's Unexplained Doesn't Mean It's Supernatural" [2011-02-04]:

"just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is paranormal, supernatural, extraterrestrial or conspiratorial. Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world, for science is grounded in naturalism, not supernaturalism, paranormalism or any other unnecessarily complicated explanations [hear, hear]."

Note: overcomplicating an explanation is known as a violation of parsimony or Occam's Razor.

 

Meanwhile, naturopathy places within science: the science-ejected and the supernatural.  They state that their foundation is science, and then they go off into cloud-cuckoo land [often SECRETLY: on that SCNM, the VMN-HPN science-ejected vitalistic centerpiece of naturopathic thought is coded, and their requisite science-ejected supernaturalism has been excised!].

So, they violate the boundaries of science, and the boundaries of professional transparency.

The lack of transparency reminds me of the antics of Scientology, actually.

A Lack of Clarity at cnpaonline.org Regarding VMN-HPN, So I'll Provide Some!

here, I search the web site of the Connecticut Naturopathic Physician's Association [CNPA] for transparency concerning their SO IMPORTANT defining vitalistic premise of naturopathy, and I share the not-very-surprising [some may even say orchestrated] results:

001. I've searched cnpaonline.org with these parameters via Google.com [without the quotes]:

"site:cnpaonline.org vital";

"site:cnpaonline.org force";

"site:cnpaonline.org medicatrix".

002. results:

002.a. the first and second search structures result in nothing.

002.b. the third search parameter results in the page "About CT Naturopathic Physicians Association" [vsc 2011-02-03] which states:

"the CNPA Board of Directors and its members are to abide by the Naturopathic Physician’s Oath [...] I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine [...] according to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment that follow the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] vis medicatrix naturae - to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN]."

Now, VMN-HPN is the 'purposeful life spirit' premise of naturopathy, and it couches everything naturopathic.  But, there's no TRANSPARENT mention of this on this page.  It should be explained as a sectarian belief ejected from science that frames this MISLABELED belief system known as naturopathy.  But, instead, we get opacity and a claim in the opposite direction, that naturopathy is SCIENCE.  I think people need to make informed decisions, and deserve proper contextualization.  But you don't get it here.

CNPA calls themselves, on this page, a "professional membership organization for naturopathic physicians licensed by the State of Connecticut and for students enrolled in accredited naturopathic medical schools recognized by the CNME" and that the board members are "Ann Aresco, ND [SCNM...] Jen Johnson, ND [NCNM...] Debra Anastasio, ND [SCNM...] Marie Mammone, ND [NCNM...] Artemis Morris, ND [Bastyr]."

But, do professionals HIDE their bases?  Is a profession based on falsehood?  And why is a State in bed with this?

Now, I can cite the vitalistic basis of naturopathy -- explicitly stated -- at the schools these NDs went to.  That's simple.  I can cite how science preponderantly has ejected the essence of the naturopathic belief system.

What's not simple for me to explain is why the citizens of Connecticut don't seem to deserve TRANSPARENCY and why this ruse continues: pseudoscientific, pseudoprofessional.

You do get some of that oh-so-medieval explicit vitalism at ND Aresco's site, yet you get the oh-so-false 'hard claim' that naturopathy is science from ND Mammone's site.

Such irrational simultaneity is the ESSENCE of naturopathy, wherein science and the science-ejected are equated.

After all, "naturopathy blends."

Licensed Falsehood*: Naturopathy, Supernaturalism, Vitalism and Kind, and the Scientific / Science-Based

here, I outline a future printed publication 'in the works', linking its sections to current appendices:

Licensed Falsehood*: Naturopathy, Supernaturalism, Vitalism and Kind, and the Scientific / Science-Based:

Table of Contents:

001. the modern definition of naturopathy;

002. naturopathy's supernaturalism;

003. naturopathy's vitalism and kind;

004. naturopathy's claim of being science-based / science subset naturopathy;

005. the scientific rejection / exclusion of the supernatural, vitalistic and kind.

Note on falsehood:

“an untrue statement; lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy; a lie; the practice of lying.”

Obviously the word covers a wide scope.

Naturopathy Down Under - ND Hogan, Science, Supernaturalism and Vitalism

here, I cite from the web pages of Australian ND Hogan [see 001., below]; and then I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Hogan, F. (ND[AU] SSNT?) states:

001.a. in "What is Naturopathy?" (2011-01-24)[vsc 2011-01-31]:

"naturopathy can easily and succinctly be broken down to define the 'natural path' [really?  so much for etymology...] Hippocrates [...] first formulated the concept of the 'healing power of nature' [HPN] linking the body, mind and spirit to inherently be able to heal itself. Naturopathy is the practice of health care that combines both traditional wisdom of natural medicine with modern scientific based evidence. It is the practice of treating the body as a whole and taking the body, mind, spirit and environment into account whilst preventing, assessing and treating conditions [...] the therapies I use may include [...] homeopathy [...] naturopaths are able to treat most ailments."

Note: the credential for an ND in Australia is often "BHSc: ND."  She links to the Southern School of Natural Therapies, so perhaps that is where she went to school.

001.b. in "The Seven Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" (2011-01-31)[vsc 2011-01-31]:

"naturopathic medicine or the practice of natural medicine is based on seven principles [...] 1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN]: naturopathic medicine recognizes that all living systems have an innate ability to heal it-self. Our vital force [vitalism] promotes self-cleansing, self-repair, and thus self-healing. The naturopaths role is to facilitate this natural process [...] causes can exist at the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual levels [...] they take into account the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and environmental factors that make up the total state of health [...] naturopaths educate their patients [...] I am a qualified naturopath with a Bachelor of Health Science [BHSc-ND] - I have had a lifelong passion for nutrition and natural medicine -I also continue to invest in ongoing professional education."

Note: oh, so much to talk about here!

002. well:

obviously the label "science" is being placed upon the naturopathy domain, from the language above: science subset health science subset naturopathy.  You get a lot of supernaturalism, and HPN-VMN=vitalism.  And all this is "science" and "natural."  That's strange because science does not contain the nonscientific supernatural and vitalistic.  Also, upon this falseness you get the label "professional".  But, how can a profession be based upon falsehood? You'll notice too that the North American naturopathy principles have migrated to the Australian schools.

When is science nonscience, natural supernatural, professional false, educating misleading?

Naturopathyland.

Dana Ullman Goes After the Homeopathy Skeptics at HuffPo [again]

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by homeopath Dana Ullman [see 001., below]:

001. Ullman writes in "Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously" (2011-01-30):

"Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine [...] most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used. Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results [...] Montagnier [...say] 'high dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules' [...]  electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects [...] although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong [except for the fact that they have been proven RIGHT]."

Note: it is interesting to see someone so adamant about sugar pills.  It is quite interesting.  I think Montagnier has gone off the science reservation, so to speak, much like Pauling did.  Separating out Ullman's sophistry [which he is quite good at, actually], quality evidence does not exist that homeopathy works.  It is so irrational, in fact, that it is labeled implausible.  And that's based upon ALL the evidence.

My Lovely Question to ND Pais and Its Answer (10 months ago)

here, I cite from a comment I received from ND Pais (NCNM 1992):

001. Pais, G. (ND NCNM 1992) states in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"naturopathic physicians are trained as general practitioners specializing in natural medicine [...] this includes therapies from the sciences [...like] homeopathy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

Note: wow.

002. so I asked him this question:

"I'm wondering why vitalism isn't mentioned in your description, and spirit? Thanks. -r.c."

003. the answer:

"Hi Rob, In this basic description I laid out the outline, didn't fill it out completely. To me, the Healing Power of Nature is vitalism. As far as spirit goes that is always addressed -- whether we acknowledge it or not."

Note: again, wow.  Loving it.

Another Anthem of Naturocrit: "Broken Arrow" Leads To "I Will Not Go Quietly"

here, I muse [truly]:

001. the film Broken Arrow (1996) has this dialog:

"[henchman] they went like lambs [presumably after killing the train crew]."

Note: I assume that the 'lambs to slaughter' adage applies here.

002. and this reminded me of a Don Henley song, "I Will Not Go Quietly":

"Woke up with a heavy head 

And I thought about leavin' town

I could have died if I wanted to

Slipped over the edge and drowned

But, oh no baby, I won't give up that easy, no."

Note: we REFUSE our slaughter. And yeah, Axl.

The Washington Post on Evolution Teaching in the Science Classroom 2011-01-29

Wow.  Just Wow. Valerie Strauss writes in "Study: Most High School Biology Teachers Don’t Endorse Evolution"(2011-01-29):

"in the same week we learned that most American students did not do well in science on a test known as 'the nation’s report card' [...wherein] 34 percent of 4th graders and 30 percent of 8th graders were deemed proficient or better in science [so MOST were NOT proficient!...] a study about biology teachers in public high schools was published [...stating that] most high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse [...] the central theory of biology [...] evolution [...] here’s the position of the National Science Teachers Association on evolution: 

'the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K–12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and many other scientific and educational organizations. NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, 'creation science,' and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.'"

Note: we need our country to be great.  Not mired in crap.

Inspired by Scienceblogs.com - RI on Naturo. and Homeo., and My Expansion of the Matter

here, I cite from Scienceblogs.com's Respectful Insolence blog concerning the relationship between naturopathy and homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I list 13 random AANP-type naturopaths who label their mandatory homeopathy "science", from my archives [see 002., below]; finally, I expand upon the naturopathic pseudostructuring of knowledge types as a type of 'epistemic pathology' [see 003., below]:

001. Orac writes in "You Can't Have Naturopathy Without Homeopathy" (2011-01-28):

"the bottom line is that, for how badly its practitioners want to represent naturopathy as science-based and rational, in reality naturopathy is anything but [hear, hear! it is truly the reversal of all values]. It embraces virtually any form of CAM therapy [sCAMs!], no matter how irrational, and its practitioners simply choose what subset of woo they want to use in their practice. If you want to know just how credulous and pseudoscientific naturopathy is, just remember that not only is homeopathy embraced by naturopaths, but knowledge of homeopathic practice is mandatory. It's taught by naturopathy schools, and naturopaths have to know enough about it to pass the NPLEX, which includes homeopathy on it. Homeopathy and naturopathy: two crappy woos that taste crappy together [damn, I thought 'like cures like', and the woos would sum to zero!  So much for that 'law']."

Note: yes, you cannot graduate from North American ND / NMD schools without taking their homeopathy series of courses and treating a certain amount of patients in their clinics homeopathically [this was certainly true when I was in ND school, and it is homeopathy that principly disgusted me most about that experience at the University of Bridgeport to the point that I stopped my schooling in the forth year].  But, NPLEX not only requires homeopathy, it falsely labels homeopathy a "clinical science".  Homeopathy is as much as science as the reading of tea leaves, astrology, the laying on of hands, and Mesmerism.  Yes, that is falsehood on a supposed professional licensure exam!  Irrationality marches on!

But, homeopathy is not the principle issue regarding the 'pathology of the natural' / naturopathy.  Removing homeopathy from naturopathy would merely be removal of a diseased branch of a diseased tree, and then incorrectly stating that the tree is well.  As I go through this post, we'll approach the trunk of that tree, the nexus of the disease afflicting the whole tree: what I see as naturopathy's principle 'knowledge type disease'.  I choose the tree metaphor because naturopathy does too.  It labels itself from the very top [here too] and from the very bottom one of the "branches of medical science".  But, that wouldn't be science from this world; it might be science in Bizarro World.

002. 'homeopathy is science' according to:

002.a. Palka, K. (ND SCNM) who states in "About Naturopathic Doctors" [vsc 2011-01-16]:

"curricula at the seven accredited naturopathic medical schools are comparable in basic medical sciences, such as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, to traditional medical school.  In addition, naturopathic science courses include nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, hydrotherapy, mind/body medicine and other therapeutics."

002.b. Pratt, S. (ND NCNM 2004) who states in "Education and Licensing" [vsc 2010-06-11]:

"a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...] to enter into the clinical training of the third year, students must pass all basic sciences and diagnostic courses [...] NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic physicians in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams (anatomy, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology) taken after the first 2 years of medical school. The clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the 4th year of school. They include: clinical and physical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, botanical medicine, pharmacology, nutrition, physical medicine, homeopathy, minor surgery, psychology and lifestyle counseling, and emergency medicine."

002.c. Kanevski, J. (ND Bastyr 2006) who states in "Our Services" [vsc 2009-02-10]:

"the medical science of homeopathy was founded by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann about 200 years ago. It is being used extensively in Europe, Israel, and India. It is gaining popularity in the United States. Health professionals that practice homeopathy include naturopathic physicians, osteopathic doctors, medical doctors, chiropractors, veterinarians, and trained professional homeopaths."

002.d.  Kargman, S. (NMD SCNM) who states in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-08]:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.s or N.M.D.s) are general practitioners trained as specialists in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences as well as complementary modalities. Naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling, Oriental medicine and acupuncture, natural childbirth, and hydrotherapy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

002.e. Coe, C. (BINM), Gallant, J. (ND BINM), Vandekerkhove, A. (ND BINM) who state in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"naturopathic physicians are trained in the conventional medical sciences and pathology to diagnose in a manner similar to medical doctors (MDs) […] they use therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, clinical psychology, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine […] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medicine."

002.f.  Cohen, H. (ND CCNM 1990) who states in "Dictionary" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"homeopathy is a holistic medical science […] homeopathy practiced by naturopathic physicians, WHEREAS homeopathy has been an integral part of naturopathic medicine since its inception and is a recognized specialty for which the naturopathic profession has created a distinct specialty organization, the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, WHEREAS homeopathy has been recognized, through rigorous testing and experimentation, as having significant scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and safety […] naturopathic medicine, sometimes called 'naturopathy,' is as old as healing itself and as new as the latest discoveries in biochemical sciences […] the naturopathic medical profession's infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing by a growing number of states, national standards of practice and care, peer review, and an ongoing commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...] naturopathic medicine […is a] science […] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles […] a licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD."

002.g.  Coward, S. (ND SCNM), Lewis, K. (ND SCNM) who state in "Misconceptions Aside, Homeopathy Has Stood the Test of Time" (2009-06-25):

"homeopathy is a 200-year-old medicinal science."

002.h. Cronin, B. (ND Bastyr 2002) who states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-23]:

"in addition to the basic medical sciences and conventional diagnostics, the naturopathic doctor is required to complete additional training in therapeutic nutrition, homeopathy, botanical medicine, physical medicine and counseling. A naturopathic doctor takes rigorous professional basic science and clinical board examinations so that he or she may be licensed by a state or jurisdiction [...] naturopathic diagnostic and therapies are supported by scientific research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines, including naturopathic medicine, conventional medicine, complementary medicine, clinical nutrition, etc.."

002.i. Bailetti, K. (ND CCNM) who states in "About Katia Bailetti ND" [vsc 201-01-23]:

"licensed naturopathic doctors in Ontario have achieved the following training [...] successful completion of North American licensing exams including basic sciences, (anatomy, biochmistry [sp., biochemistry], microbiology, immunology, physiology and pathology), as well as clinical sciences (physical and clinical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, pharmacology, emergency medicine, clinical nutrition, physical medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture and homeopathy)".

002.j. Beaty, J.K. (ND Bastyr 1988) who states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-20]:

"naturopathic medicine is as much a philosophy of life as it is a science [...] naturopathic doctors [...] are educated in the conventional medical sciences, diagnostic techniques and methods, but prefer to treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling and hydrotherapy [...] we cooperate with all other branches of the medical sciences."

Overall note: I think it is clear that preponderantly -- and the naturopaths above are from the schools in the U.S. and Canada -- naturopathy claims homeopathy is science, and homeopathy is inseparable from naturopathy as it is "required" and "integral".  The Cohen link is useful because the AANP has buried its position papers.  This happened particularly after the Atwood pieces were published several years ago in MedGenMed.  Homeowatch has a 1993 version up, so its still publicly accessible.

003. naturopathy's 'epistemic pathology' by way of the  the "Textbook of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0443073007, 2005, 3rd. ed.) sample chapter, freely available:

"many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [vitalism, a science-ejected concept...] homeopathy and acupuncture are primary methods of such stimulation [so, now the scientific is premised on the science-ejected, science=nonscience...] humans are spiritual beings. They are spirits that reside within bodies [so, now the scientific contains the science-exterior supernatural, science subset supernaturalism]. Though the general purview of the physician is the body, that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it.  If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy [so, now we have a conflation of knowledge-kind and ontological kind: the supernatural and the physical are one, the physician is metaphysician, the naturalistic and supernaturalistic are indistinguishable, articles of sectarian faith and scientific objective fact cannot be delineated]. Hahnemann, the brilliant founder of homeopathy [oh, they so love their homeopathy], instructs physicians thus. Disturbance in the spirit [he said lebenskraft or dynamis, which is vitalism aka life force] permeates the body and eventuates in physical manifestation [if that's not a sectarian belief system, I don't know what is]. Physicians are responsible for perceiving such disturbances and addressing them. At colleges of naturopathic medicine in Australia and North America, faculty work with naturopathic medicine students to develop their ability to perceive the spiritual nature of an individual."

Note: now, the book's principle editor calls naturopathy "science-based".  Yes, that is a 'knowledge type pathology' of a grand scale.  I think it approaches a 'cultic insanity' type level.  What naturopathy does is CONFLATE in order to achieve its goal: to disguise and falsely posture sectarian faithy-beliefy crap that has either been science-ejected or is simply unscienceable and therefore science-exterior, as scientific fact in order to further its market.

My expansion is simply this: even if naturopathy divorced itself from homeopathy -- if it cut off that branch, so to speak, from the tree -- it would still be naturopathy IN PRINCIPLE, literally.  It would still mislabel what is not science but instead items and methods of faith / belief / quasi-religion / sectarian medicine.

That is the trunk of the rotten epistemic tree known as naturopathy; that is the root cause, with their nutty homeopathy only a symptom of a deeper irrationalism.

My Favorite 'Science Excludes Supernaturalism' V4E3 Quotes

here, I cite from the National Center For Science Education's "Voices For Evolution" (3rd ed., ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2009) [V4E3] regarding the preponderant exclusion of supernaturalism from science:

001. "Kansas Academy of Science [...] 2006 [...] ideas that involve a supernatural agent are not scientifically testable, and therefore not scientific [p.059]."

002. "National Association of Biology Teachers [...] 1995 [...] science may appear to conflict with other ways of knowing about the universe, unfortunately leading some groups to see selected theories of science as a threat to their belief systems. This is not the case; science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [...] any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific, ways of knowing [p.154]."

003. "National Science Education Leadership Association [...] 1990 [...] creationism, and other pseudo-sciences, are premised upon supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and therefore are outside the realm of science [p.161]."

004. "New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education [...no date] these people denounce the theory of evolution and would substitute a non-scientific, supernatural explanation of the origins of life forms on earth [...] the creationist goal is to allow supernatural explanations into science in order to change the very basis of science. Science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Creationism or intelligent design, if allowed, would change this to promote supernatural explanations for natural phenomena – a contradiction in terms with regard to science [p.167]."

005. "University of Oklahoma Department of Zoology: Statement on Evolution [...] 4/19/2006 [...] in science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including intelligent design creationism, are not scientific because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that ‘both sides’ of the issue are taught is to advocate that nonscience be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic. We thus oppose any attempt to weaken scientific standards with respect to evolution, or to broaden the science curriculum to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of  Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations [p.179]."

Note: guess what area claims -- absurdly -- that science INCLUDES the supernatural and science-exterior?

'Naturopathy is Best Medical Science and Common Sense' - ND Yates on KXTV ABC 10 San Francisco - 2011-01-05

here, I stretch the limits of your absurdity meter by quoting from a recent AANP video [see 001., below]:

001. Yates, B. (ND NCNM 1994) states in the Youtube video "Beverly Yates, ND, on 'Sacramento & Co.' - Weight Loss Alternatives (January 5, 2011)" [vsc 2011-01-25]:

"[host] naturopathic doctor Beverly Yates shares how we can shed pounds and maintain a healthy weight the natural way [...] tell our audience what naturopathic medicine is [...Yates] naturopathic medicine is what I would consider to be best practices from medical science and the healing arts. It includes [...] food as your medicine [...] homeopathy [...] and the ever popular common sense."

Note: so, we're told "science" and "sense".  And "homeopathy".

002. now, lets test those science and sense claims by going to a) the State of Oregon's '.gov' description of naturopathy [which the NDs wrote], which paralles b) the description naturopathy at Yates's alma mater NCNM [the seat of the ND revival]:

002.a. OBNM states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic Medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine  [...] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [NHP...] naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease [...that] are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms,which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

002.b. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...] principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they are] the distinguishing marks of the [supposed] profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VNM...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The  physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

002.c. what's in common, 'the essentially naturopathic', and what is NOT ABLE to pass scientific muster and is nonsensical to call science IN FACT:

002.c1. naturopathy's essential vitalism -- the VF, NHP, HPN-VMN, LF, VF junk -- is indeed HUGELY science-ejected:

explaining life processes vitalistically is like explaining fire phlogistically or the earth's shape planarly -- scientifically illiterate.

002.c2. homeopathy is indeed science-ejected.

003. when:

is the science-ejected falsely labeled a scientific fact;

the absurd common science;

medicine based upon fairy dust;

commerce couched in false labels: 

naturopathy -- and its 'reversal of all values'.

So beware.  By the way, ND Yates is the "2010 National Media Spokesperson for American Association of Naturopathic Physicians" [saved 2011-01-27].

Disinformed Consent - ND Gleixner Describes Naturopathy Opaquely - Times and Transcript 2011-01-26

here, I detail what I'll call naturopathic pseudojournalistic propaganda.  A New Brunswick, Canada ND disinforms the public about the basis of naturopathy (not surprising, IMHO)! First, I cite from the article itself [see 001.a., below], then from that ND's own web pages [see 001.b., below]; finally, I decode the whole thing via the Canadian ND national organization [see 002., below]:

001. Gleixner, M. (ND BINM 2008) states [a bio. is here]:

001.a. in "Guiding Principles Form a New Health-Care Paradigm" (2011-01-26)[vsc 2011-01-26]:

[notated as I go!]

"Dr. Martin Gleixner, MSc, ND owns the Moncton Naturopathic Medical Clinic [...and] offers professional health care [...] Dr. Gleixner is a qualified naturopathic doctor presently accepting new patients. Additional information can be found on www.monctonnaturopathic.com. His column appears every fourth week on in Life & Times [...] in two previous columns, I wrote about improving health care in New Brunswick as well as for all Canadians (see www.monctonnaturopathic.com for previous columns) [that web page kicks to an ndaccess.com page he has up...]

Note: so, this is an advertisement!  Wow, smart.  Publish in a newspaper and direct the readers to your practice!  So, I guess this is trade / commerce.  I see a science credential / posture above!  Not the ND, the MSc.

[...here, he proposes] an integrated approach [...] a new health paradigm [model, just say model!] that aims to determine and address the true cause of one's medical concerns [...] we can start now by adopting a new approach in the way we think about medicine [...] a  new vision for practicing medicine [...] a framework that can best promote a  patient's health [...therefore these are] ways that we can improve medicine [...this is] change that our health-care system desperately needs [...] 

Note: hmmm.  I wonder what he's offering!  There's a lot of talk of things that are "new" and "true", and an improvement / good change.

  adopting the naturopathic principles discussed herein is not only a timely undertaking, but can help infuse a necessary framework into the way we practice medicine in New Brunswick and Canada [...] as a qualified naturopathic doctor, the following six principles [...these] time-tested guiding principles [...] have provided me with a unique understanding and strong foundation in the way that I practice medicine [...all of them] first do no harm (primum non nocere), co-operate with the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix  naturae), identify and treat the cause (tolle causam), treat the whole person, doctor as teacher (docere), prevent disease and promote health [...]

Note: oh, THAT'S what's being offered, the 'ND sectarian creed'.  I'm an expert on it.  But, what's offered above is only cursory.  Details, if you want to call them that, are offered below.  Then, I'll offer real details so you can make a truly informed decision.

[in detail (wink-wink), via] the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND), www.cand.ca, the following excerpt provides an excellent summary of the guiding principles [...]

Note: I'll add to the selected CAND language in 002. below, for the sake of clarity. Needless to say, though the ND congratulates himself on his version of these principles, I find them to be manipulatively inadequate.

[#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN; I've moved the Latin up from 'treat the whole person' principle as that was an error in the article, as the summary listed attests to]: your naturopathic doctor works to restore and support the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit and to prevent further disease from occurring. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery, facilitating and augmenting this ordered and intelligent healing ability [...] for a more in-depth explanation of this principle, please visit www.monctonnaturopathic.com [...]

Note: HPN-VMN is naturopathy's vitalistic central premise, coded here.  What a douche.  We'll see what his own web pages represent it as below.  You do get a glimpse of the supernatural element in naturopathy from the above.

[...#4] treat the whole person [...]  your naturopathic doctor takes into account not only your physical symptoms, but also mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, spiritual and other factors [...] 

Note: more supernaturalism. 

[...#5] doctor as teacher (docere): your naturopathic doctor will assist you in understanding health and illness. He/she will provide you with an understanding of the factors that affect your health and help you balance and become more capable of maintaining your own health [...]

Note: so, you are also promised that you will be informed, and empowered with naturopathic knowledge!  Wow.

your naturopathic doctor applies all of the above principles [...] these principles can also enhance a doctor's ability to diagnose health conditions, improve patient-doctor interactions, lead to better treatment success, minimize the use of invasive procedures and medical complications, to name a few [...] these guidelines provide reassurance, help them understand the causes behind their disease so that they know how to take care of themselves in the future, and provide them with an understanding behind suggestions and treatments provided by the doctor."

Note: so, the principles are mandatory, and posed as useful. Let's put these claims to the test.

001.b. we're told by ND Gleixner at his ndaccess.com web page:

001.b1. regarding HPN-VMN particularly:

NOTHING.  Yes, that's right, when I search the web page ndaccess.com/MonctonNaturopathic for "force", "medicatrix", "power", and "vital", I get NOTHING.

Note: really.  Wow.

001.b.2. but regarding science, the ND makes a science-competency claim in "NDs and MDs Should Work Together" [saved 2011-01-26]:

"both NDs and MDs are equally trained in the diagnosis of health conditions, in the core medical sciences (anatomy, pathology, physiology, etc.) and in specialty medical fields (pharmacology, gynecology, obstetrics, oncology, geriatrics, etc) [...] naturopathic medicine is not yet regulated in New Brunswick, however, the members of the New Brunswick Association of Naturopathic Doctors (NBAND) are presently working with the provincial government to achieve that goal [...see] www.nband.ca."

Note: so, that's it.  No real information.  Just a claim of science, like the MSc posture.

002. decoding what has been mentioned by the ND:

002.a. NBAND and CAND state, regarding HPN-VMN [respectively]:

002.a1. in "About Naturopathic Medicine":

[notated as I go]

"the principals of naturopathic medicine are [...#2] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature - we cannot have healthy people on a sick planet, so we must take care of our environment and use the gifts of the earth in a respectful manner [...] the aim of the naturopathic doctor (ND) is to support and stimulate the body’s innate ability to heal itself [...]

Note: coded vitalism, still.

 the modalities used by a naturopathic doctor include [...] acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine - the insertion of sterile needles along meridian points to stimulate the bodies own healing energy (qi) [...] homeopathy [...] minute quantities [...] are given to strengthen vitality and heal body, mind and spirit [...]

Note: ah, some explicit science-ejected vitalism and supernaturalism.

medicine [...] is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention [...] a naturopathic doctor blends modern clinical sciences with traditional healing practices [...] training to become an ND includes the prerequisite three years of university premedical sciences courses.  The four year full time ND program at an accredited college includes the human medical sciences."

Note: but there's quite a 'science expertise' claim.

NBAND states at their home page:

"the objectives of the New Brunswick Association of Naturopathic Doctors [...includes] to educate the public on the philosophies and values of naturopathic medicine [...] to provide up-to-date and accurate information as it pertains to naturopathic medicine [...] for the protection of public interest [...] within the province of New Brunswick."

Not happening, yet.  HPN is quite opaque at their site about the FACT that qi / vitality and supernaturalism are not science-supportable and are in fact science-ejected.  Perhaps we'll have better luck at CAND, the national Canadian organization, directly below.

002.a2. in the CAND book "The History of Naturopathic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective" (ISBN 15527877882009, 2009)[which I own]:

"copies [...] are available for purchase from the CAND office [...] a limited number of hardcover books have been printed [...] all proceeds from the book will go to support the marketing efforts of the CAND [see  http://www.cand.ca/index.php?id=232...amongst many references to naturopathy's defining vitalism] the aim of naturopathic physicians is to treat the patient, not the disease, by directing the vital force and encouraging it with naturopathic therapeutics to stimulate the body’s own defenses [p.031]."

Note: so, there you go.  It's elusive, and you really have to get inside naturopathy to get that explicit, pan-naturopathic vitalistic context transparently stated.

Now, like NBAND, you can also get a glimpse of naturopathy's essential vitalism in CAND's "Questions: Naturopathic Treatments":

"homeopathic remedies are minute dilutions of plant, animal and mineral substances designed to stimulate the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal. Traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture. Based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) through meridian pathways under the skin, Oriental medicine includes the use of Oriental herbs and acupuncture to regulate and release chi in order to bring the body into balance."

003. comments:

so, what you get represented in a journalistic context from naturopathy just doesn't cut the mustard in terms of professional standards, journalistically or medically.  Beware!  If you are seeking to make a truly informed decision about the naturopathic, you'll have to look further than their propaganda.  They are trained to be opaque about their underlying premise, and to employ a fake science label upon the whole thing.

This junk is not "new": a science-ejected vital force that is a true cause?  No.  Conflating the scientific with the science-exterior is not an improvement of any kind.  Useful?  No.  I guess it is excellent in naturopathyland to propagandize and manipulate.

File naturopathy 'under lying'.  Lies of omission, that is.  And commission.

In honor of ND Gleixner's pseudojournalistic opacity, I've made a Wordle of his 001.a. article:

Now, if you want a little better transparency about naturopathy's essential vitalism, visit ND Cage, the President of the California Naturopathic Doctor's Association [I kid you not] who states: "naturopathic medicine is based on the philosophy of vitalism."  Here's what a Wordle of that page looks like: